Generally, pilots have received training leading to their instrument flight certification by using ground base table top simulators to learn basic attitude and instrument navigation procedures, followed by flight with an instructor pilot for exposure to actual cross country and terminal area conditions. Both of these methods of training have proved less than totally satisfactory.
Heretofore when a student received Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) training in an aircraft, it was necessary to actually fly the aircraft with an instructor to airports and other areas which have equipment which generates the necessary electronic signls, electronic replies to aircraft systems and has air traffic control facilities so that the student can receive, observe and operate the aircraft instruments in the plane and practice instrument navigation; landing; departure, and enroute procedures and operations of an aircraft solely by reference to the aircraft flight instruments required for instrument flight. This normally required such training to take place in congested flight areas which are equipped with the necessary electronic systems, such as found at airports and along the air route system. As can be seen, it is extremely dangerous and disruptive to orderly air traffic flow in that you have an inexperienced person being trained for flight IFR licensing while other commercial and private flights are taking place in the same airspace. In fact, all recent mid-air collisions involving air carrier aircraft included general aviation pilots that were in training near congested airports. The National Transportation Safety Board, as a result of the San Diego mid-air collision recommended that airports and other navigation facilities be constructed in remote non-congested areas to permit IFR training away from commercial air operations. This invention permits such training in remote, non-congested areas without the need for the expensive construction of ground based systems normally referred to as Reliever Airports in the NTSB recommendations. Further, current IFR training is practically impossible in the heavy traffic areas, however, these are the airports & areas which are equipped with the electronic systems necessary for the student to develop the multiplicity of skills necessary to achieve his instrument rating. Since most of this training is normally conducted during visual flight rule (VFR) conditions, the student rarely receives training that is equivalent to that required under actual IFR conditions. Hence, this training in many respects is inadequate. Finally, most pilot training is based at airports remote from the highly congested airports, however, these airports are not equipped with all, and in many cases, any of the electronic systems used for controlling and guiding the student during IFR training flights. Therefore, in addition to being unable to conduct the training at such airports, another problem is that it requires additional time and student expense for the aircraft and instructor to fly to and from the remote airports to properly equipped airports to achieve the training and consumes significantly more fuel.
The table top ground based IFR simulators are an alternative that are both econmical and safe and have the additional advantage of permitting the instructor to autonomously control the selection, sequence and repetition of the training exposure unconstrained by either weather or traffic.
Another advantage of ground simulators is the capability to interrupt or "freeze" the training so as to allow the instructor to provide critical feedback information to the student in a timely, safe and relaxed manner.
Despite these and other advantages, a number of limitations have been reported in the use of ground training devices. One of the more serious general aviation pilot training is attitudinal and concerns the inability or unwillingness of students to take seriously the capabilities of the device to condition critical skills which will transfer to the aircraft. This tendency to treat the device as a toy can seriously degrade training because poor piloting techniques and procedures acquired in the use of the device will almost certainly transfer to the aircraft.
There also has been much more resistance within general aviation to the replacement of flying time with ground trainer time. Many students trained by fixed base operators feel that their training dollars should be applied to training in the "real thing" even if it means that such training is ultimately more expensive.
Finally, the ground training devices have acquired some disrepute on the basis of their lack of physical fidelity to the aircraft. The feeling persists among many training personnel that use of a device that does not produce physical indications exactly like those experienced in the aircraft will result in inferior training.